The European Parliament's Committee has ambitiously set out to tackle the thorny issue of unfair trading practices in the agricultural and food supply chain by advocating for stronger cooperation among enforcement authorities. This forward-looking approach signals a shake-up for enforcement bodies, farmers, retailers, and supply chain stakeholders, promising clearer rules and cross-border enforcement, yet likely stirring debates over national legal autonomy and the balance of EU harmonisation.
The analysis is based on a REPORT dated 30 July 2025, issued by an unspecified Committee of the European Parliament. The document addresses the proposal for regulation on enforcement cooperation concerning Directive (EU) 2019/633, which targets unfair business-to-business trading practices in the agri-food sector.
As a policy document—specifically a report compiling amendments submitted up to May 2025—the report is neither newly minted legislation nor mere declarative text. It concretely analyzes hundreds of proposed amendments, reflecting deep political engagement and divergent views, yet it does not finalize the legislative process. The amendments include calls for strengthened transparency measures, centralisation of enforcement powers at the EU level, clarification of cross-border enforcement mechanisms, and specified procedural safeguards.
Policy orientations emerging from the document lean heavily towards increased EU-level harmonisation and cooperation, particularly championed by Greens/EFA and Renew groups advocating a stronger European Commission role and stringent supplier protections. Contrastingly, the ECR group insists on maintaining strong national legal prerogatives, illustrating a tug-of-war between centralised EU oversight and national sovereignty. The Left group amplifies demands for procedural transparency and extends enforcement scope to non-EU actors, while balancing Member States’ rights to stricter national rules. The policy debate reveals cleavages over expanding vs. limiting EU powers, harmonisation vs. national autonomy, and procedural transparency vs. operational discretion.
The impact on stakeholders is varied: enforcement authorities may receive increased resources and clearer mandates, benefiting cross-border cooperation but facing higher complexity; EU producers and suppliers, especially small farmers, stand to gain stronger protections yet may encounter lengthier procedures; large retail alliances might experience tighter scrutiny, raising compliance costs; and national authorities could confront stricter oversight, challenging their sovereignty. Civil society may welcome transparency gains but watch closely for practical enforcement.
Institutionally, this report kicks off a crucial phase in the legislative process, where the European Parliament aims to steer discussions as the Commission and member states consider their positions. Next steps likely involve negotiations with the Council and Commission, as well as further committee deliberations, to strike a balance between harmonisation and national flexibility in tackling unfair trading in the agri-food supply chain.